Talk: Garland (Final Fantasy)

Contents

Is it just me, or does killing Garland in the past make no sense whatsoever? If killing the fiends in the present fails wouldn't killing Garland in the past be the same thing? It looks like square just hurried up and wrote and ending without thinking.

Do you know if he lives, though? Killing Chaos ended that whole time paradox thing, so Chaos couldn't go 2000 years into the future, hence Garland couldn't go 2000 years into the past, and so on. 8bit 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

8bit, that makes my head hurt more than landing face-first in a spike pit. --ChiefKakashi 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I also add that killing Chaos prevents him from freeing the four Elemental Lords, which Prevent said Lords from rampaging through the world and meeting Garland, which prevents Garland from making a pact with the Lords to free them 2000 years in the past if they bestow the powers of Chaos, thus preventing the creation of Chaos, thus preventing........ 8bit 20:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me re-opening this topic. It goes like this: The time loop was a linked chain of related events. Towards the restarting of the loop is Chaos killing the Warriors of Light. Now, as the reverse actually happened, every single link in the chain was destroyed. As a result the events of Final Fantasy never happened. Therefore, Garland never would have turned evil. Hope I asploded someone's head then. --SCM 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any Amano art of Garland? I know there's the Dissidia poster, but I mean original art. An old drawing of a Light Warrior fighting an Ochu appears to have a horned dark armored knight peering on, but the helmet design is quite different from Gary's, so I suspect that might just be one of those knight enemies.. BadMan, was it? XD Anyway, it seems that Cloud of Darkness had some old art that never met my eyes until Dissidia, so I wonder if Gary's the same way?

I'd say that Garland looks to be from FF 1 pretty much rather than FF IX, although it would make more sense if it was the FF IX one... but what the heck, it'll prolly be explained when the game comes...

Is this the result of a bad translation, or censoring something about brutal murder, or..... something cool? Threatening to knock someone down seems like a fairly lackluster threat. Dorsha 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC) , the man without a talk box.

So Garland has a backstory now. Dissidia's "Cosmos Reports" tell of a Lufeinian boy who, if I understand this correctly, was kidnapped and experimented upon to create a supersoldier to wipe out the Eidolons/Espers/whatever. After he was of no more use, he was discarded, and he eventually called upon the Four Fiends and Chaos to create a cycle and blah blah blah, you know the rest.

Thing is, the story's told from Cid's wife's perspective, never names Garland specifically (though it's obviously him), and most problematic of all.. it's only told in Dissidia. While the intro, ending, and Cosmos Reports all make it clear that Dissidia's world is based on (if not equal to) FF1's, I'm not sure if this backstory extends to our Garland. Clearly this was meant to give him some more of a presence as a character, but I don't know if it deserves to be added to his page, y'know?

Thoughts?

It should definitely be added, including the part saying that it's only revealed in Dissidia. The readers are intelligent enough to make their own opinion on what to make of it. Bluetash 14:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can authoritively state that it's his new backstory just yet. While it's entirely possible, it's not explicit just yet. I don't think it should be removed nor do I think it's not his backstory (it can really only be his or Chaos's what with the time distortion), but that it should be noted as being speculative pro tem.Ryushikaze 16:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say add it under story with the sub-header "Dissidia" just like any other story section. A note can be made somewhere pointin out that it may not be the same Garland etc,etc,etc. Diablocon 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"In the original title, he is the knight that stands between the Warriors of Light and their destiny. There was a time when he was a renowned hero, but one day he kidnaps Princess Sarah and locks himself in the Chaos Shrine."

Taken from the English website. It seems the two Garlands are one and the same. Drake Clawfang 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no difference in what we already knew, but Dissidia is still non-canon, according to SE. Unless it says in the original Final Fantasy that Garland is Cid's adoptive son, we stay with the status quo. - Henryacores^ 01:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So unless the original FF7 says that Angeal existed, he should be mentioned as "non-canon" as well? Dissidia is in the same universe as FF1. This is confirmed by the Reports and the ending. It's the same deal as with Crisis Core and such. Dazuro 01:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

These are alt versions of the characters, but just because they aren't the same as the originals doesn't mean they can't have the same backstory! If alt-universes exist out there, I'm sure there would be hundreds of versions of me with identical pasts, but would that make them me (as in, this universes' version of me)? No. Diablocon 11:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know for a fact that neither version of Garland exists, so the subject is mute. All things Final Fantasy are covered. So there we go. --BlueHighwindツ 12:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

@Dazuro: Dissidia is not in the same universe as anything because it was announced to be non-canon by SE itself. Crisis Core wasn't, if I recall, and is part of the compilation of Final Fantasy VII. Think first, answer second, okay? - Henryacores^ 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

@Henry: They never said that.

By the way, the word is canon. A cannon is something you shoot cannonballs out of. Dazuro 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Having the player decide is something like the ending of FFT, or the issue with Ashley Riot's family, or the Cloud-Aeris-Tifa love sandwich. Not non-canon (a word I seriously hate both saying and typing because the only people who use it freely have their heads right up their ass). I say we cover it. --BlueHighwindツ 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, its as official as anything else. We're not making it up, the facts are right there in Dissida, which is a Final Fantasy game. I'm not going to waste my time explaining how it can all fit plot-wise, because Square didn't. Follow their example. --BlueHighwindツ 00:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How cute. You linked to a discussion about the exact same thing, where you said the exact same words but, yet again, failed to provide an actual quote or source. The quote you listed above, by the way, is very similar to one I recall from a faked interview, though I don't recall it 100% so it might just be similar. And furthermore, even that quote says nothing at all related to the point you're trying to make. Verdict: You fail it hardcore. Dazuro 00:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you got to that veredict by reading your arguments. I believe it to be biased.

Anyhow, in any case I haven't seen a concrete proof that Dissidia Garland is FF1 Garland, but only one that they're distinct. As Drake's source says:

"In the original title, he is the knight that stands between the Warriors of Light and their destiny. There was a time when he was a renowned hero, but one day he kidnaps Princess Sarah and locks himself in the Chaos Shrine.",

This means that, unless Dissidia really is canon and means to provide backstory, Garland is different in the original title, thus being different from his Dissidia incarnation. Thus, their stories are different. I'm not objecting the exclusion of this on his page (Garland (Final Fantasy)), I'm objecting the inclusion of this on his Final Fantasy section, because it isn't told in Final Fantasy, does not belong to FF1 and one that plays the most recent FF1 will not hear this. If this is to be included in his Final Fantasy section, you can change the retcons made to FFVII by the compilation in FFVII sections as well. - Henryacores^ 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll note that it's listed as an "alternate backstory" and that Dissidia "retcons it extensively". What the hell are you complaining about? Dazuro 01:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And thus much like a caged animal, the wild Henryacores realizes his argument is in jeopardy and lashes out with insults and attacks. Dazuro 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Verdict: You fail it hardcore is the surely most friendly compliment I recieved in my life from an Australopithecus. - Henryacores^ 01:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Taken from the English website. It seems the two Garlands are one and the same.

Was there ever any doubt..?

Not sure what the problem is here. Of course Dissidia Garland is the same as the FFI Garland, just as Dissidia Cloud is the FFVII Cloud and Dissidia Emperor is the FFII Emperor. Mateus' main page is not getting an addendum that says "after the Emperor was killed by Firion, Chaos revived him, and he formed an alliance with Ultimecia and plotted to overthrow the two main deities." We are not adding to Cecil's page that "because of his dual appearance in Dissidia, it appears that Cecil can shift between Dark Knight and Paladin at will. How and when he acquired this ability after the events of FFIV are unknown."

Or ARE we? It's the same character. That doesn't mean everything they do in a spin-off that has not been translated into English is guaranteed. We don't do this with the FFT artifacts, which document such things as the White Materia and Semitt Falls. Maybe I'm missing the point of this argument... 8bit 02:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tactics artifacts are just references. They extensively mix-and-match and change up what's what and where's where, and they're all part of the Tactics world so they have no bearing on the original games' versions. Dissidia, however, features the original characters (especially since several characters are trying to go back to their home dimensions, and such), so any developments with them actually have bearings on the original characters to an extent--and ESPECIALLY with regards to Garland, since so much of the in-game lore is dedicated to establishing a history for him. Dazuro

And Nomura calls Dissidia a "Final Fantasy installment." Going by this being a legitimate Final Fanatsy :::installment, the numerous references and connections to Final Fantasy's backstory, and the fact that Dissidia :::specifically ties Garland to this new backstory, this is not only the same Garland, but its a legitimate canon :::connection to the original game.It's ending goes right back to Cornelia. It's as canon as can get. There's no :::evidence whatsoever to it not. So saying this isn't the same Garland makes no sense at all.74.192.123.186 22:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Makoeyes

Please tell me how you know that the first link is fake and the second one true. ScatheMote 22:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See page 5 of the first link, like he said, and you can read yourself. I Lion Heart I 22:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is not what I ment to say. The computer thatI amusing is glitching up op me. What I ment is how do we know that the second source is true.Im'getting tired of fixing wierd errors so pleasedisreguardthem. ScatheMote 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hitoshura has translated this monster of an interview with Tetsuya Nomura, from the Dissidia Final Fantasy Ultimania.". If a sentence includes "Ultimania", it's probably true. :D I Lion Heart I 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, the Dissidia Ultimania interview article cites the page number, the book, the section, and ::::::::includes pictures for veracity. The previous gamefaqs one is debunked utterly and has no real source at all. ::::::::It's not valid.74.192.123.186 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Makoeyes

I don't know what the big deal is, this is an element commonly found in fiction, there could be 1,000,000 universes with 1,000,000 Garlands in them, and they would all have the same backstory. Not only that, but whatever happened in Dissidia, at the ending, WoL ends up right back at Cornelia, so whatever happened in doesn't affect the Final Fantasy universe, or any of the Final Fantasies (II, III, IV, etc) in any way. It might only be that by the time the original Final Fantasy came out, the technology and storytelling weren't as polished as they are now, they have evolved, this may have simply been an effort on Square Enix's behalf to give Garland a worthy backstory compared to the ones of the other villains, and thus should be considered until an official source states it as true or false. The only thing that can disprove this is is the conversation between Garland and Kuja in which he mentions the other Garland. The One Clad in Black

Flicking through it, I came across a picture of a "Knightly" figure after pictures of the four fiends, and before one of Chaos. It also has several features in common with Nomura's art of him, if you look at the belt and the battle skirt thing.
All the work is untitled, but (at long last might I add) could this be Garland?
Someone's uploaded it on their blog (it's the picture to the left).

Teletroid(7:34 Central Time Zone)-- I can't seem to find his Amano pic either. I know there is a pic because they had to get a reference for his appearance in Dissidia. Wonder where we might be able to find one?

...it's mentioned that Garland was used to help destroy Omega and the Summoned Beasts of his world. I couldn't quite read it right, but was it said that he was successful? And if so, how did Omega (specifically) end up in the Interdimensional Rift? I know this is all speculation, but I'm curious as hell. TheMasterFighter 05:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the Dissidia Garland and FF1 Garland are the same, then Dissidia is canon and thus, in some aspect, all the FF worlds exist in alternate dimensions and are connected by the Void (Gilgamesh?). So it's possible that Garland didn't destroy Omega, but cast him into the Void. 64.228.216.113 05:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be hard pressed to see a person on this wikia who thinks that at LEAST Gilgamesh from V and VIII are canonly (you know what I mean) the same. Myself, I'd like to think that all Gilgamesh appearances are the same one and all canon. But back to the Omega part, I don't think there was any indication that Garland had control of the Void prior to the events of FF1 (if we are still assuming Dissidia and FF1 Garland are the same), considering he was basically skin and bones when he was sucked in and released into FF1's current world. Also, I've noticed that Omega mentioned in Dissidia Garland's backstory wasn't specified, so it may possibly be a completely different version that we haven't seen yet. TheMasterFighter 07:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Garland in Dissidia is decisively not the same as the FFI Garland. I just watched the English Shade Impulse scene - Garland tells Chaos that when he was on the brink of death, Chaos sent him back 2000 years into the past, and eventually Garland became Chaos himself. If the two Garlands were the same, it would be the fiends who sent him into the past. This is a clear indication of different backstories, and thus the two Garlands are not the same. Drake Clawfang 03:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible ret-con? Not that I disagree, just playing devil's advocate. Plus it makes more sense that Chaos would help him to connect it closer to Dissidia. Although this would leave the Fiends in the backseat to the story.TheMasterFighter 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Four Fiends sent Garland back in time at the behest of Chaos, according to his plan, so by default it was essentially Chaos and his will that sent him back in the past. That's not a contradiction at all.66.76.60.163 12:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Makoeyes

Okay, SE considers Dissidia non-canon, but from what I can tell about the plot, it doesn't even matter. One of the reports even suggested that the characters in Dissidia weren't the ACTUAL characters, but sort of like recreations of their consciousness.

Which sort of segueys into what I'm going to bring up: I think many areas of Garland's Dissidia story are wrong. The reports suggest that Garland wasn't an orphan, but that he was produced scientifically from the get-go. "Even a created life is life." I also don't know where cloning Cid's wife came from, but I might have just forgotten that part.

I'll look these over in more detail & post quotes if this becomes a topic of discussion. For obvious reasons, I don't want to just go ahead & change something that's so questionable, to begin with.

That's right, not one, but TWO potential revisions to the Garland page!

Now, I haven't played FF1, so this time I actually can't edit the page, but it uses some interesting wording, stating that Garland "orchestrated many of the game's events." Now, I know about his Xanatos Gambit involving travelling into the past & becoming Chaos, but "orchestrate" implies something a bit more planned out than sending the fiends into the future, you know what I mean?

So, my question is, is there anything besides becoming Chaos that he's noted as doing that could satisfy those conditions? Or not even necessarily separate from that, but reasons for sending the fiends to certain points? Anything that could fit?

This would be so much easier to discuss if I'd actually played the game....

Well, FF1 doesn't have a lot of plot to orchestrated. Garland made the pact with the Fiends for them to go to the future, and he went back in time to become Chaos. The only real unknown is what role he had in the Fiends draining the Crystals of their power, but given that the Dark Crystal in the Chaos Shrine is what sends you back in time, it's a possibility that the Fiends in the Present draining the Crystals are what gives Garland the power to go back in time, and so-forth. Drake Clawfang 01:10, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

I know its been like a year.. but this has been bothering me after reading this wiki article.

Nowhere in the Cosmos reports does it say that the orphan child is Garland. i mean.. it isnt even implied, since they dont conclusively tie any relation between the child and the 4 fiends either. The child could be anybody.. and as far as we know, Garland isnt even that powerful.

the child could be some unnamed new character, quite similar to Deumion in ff2..
as such i dont think the backstory of the child in the cosmos reports should be included..
--Spira 14:28, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Garland's motive for abducting Sarah being to seize control of Cornelia was introduced in later versions of the game (WSC, probably, or maybe PS; didn't found complete scene of WSC version in Japanese). The original and MSX version doesn't seem to have a mention of it. Actually, first (Character) volume of series' 20th Anniversary Ultimania says (from what I can understand, at least) that Garland's hatred was a result of Sarah rejecting his feelings. I'm not sure if there's stated specifically that this was the reason for kidnapping her, but I think that's at least implied, giving his quote in the original version upon engaging him. By the way, Garland's profile on Japanese page for TFFAC also says of the princess not returning his feelings.--LeafShinobi (talk) 21:25, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

You are indeed correct about the TFFAC webpage containing information about Garland's unrequited love for Sarah, but because I felt that there was not enough dialogue or in-game text to support this assertion, I added it to the trivia section for now. Would you happen to have the scan of that Ultimania page? If the information is indeed from an official guidebook, then this would surely be considered canon. Mikami Teru (talk) 09:38, January 16, 2018 (UTC)